Comparatively, other countries have proceeded to extend the period within which companies may hold their annual general meetings, with others allowing hybrid AGMs where some shareholders participate in person, even as others exercise their rights electronically.

This was however not enough considering most companies’ articles of association were silent on virtual meetings, thus the qualifier being that virtual meetings were only permissible subject to the articles of association authorising the board to call a virtual shareholders meeting.

It is against this backdrop that I find that although the court granted companies the right to conduct virtual meetings, companies must exercise caution to avoid numerous court cases by shareholders, targeting the conduct and manner of the meeting as well as the resolutions passed.

Some of the ways of exercising caution can be by; - (I) Guaranteeing that shareholders can exercise their voting rights by online voting, video-conference or other telecommunication means where their identity can be verified; (ii) Guaranteeing that shareholders will be accorded the same rights and privileges to participate as they would at an in-person meeting; (iii) Ensure that company resolution and notices have been published on time, and (iv) Ensure that shareholders are provided with a full live transmission of the meeting.

In conclusion, although some measures are temporal, companies should proceed to modernize their articles of associations to allow for the possibility of convening and holding a virtual shareholders meeting.